Switching from One Biosimilar to Another Biosimilar of the Same Reference Biologic: A Systematic Review of Studies

Biosimilars of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for ophthalmic diseases: A review

The development of intravitreally injected biologic medicines (biologics) acting against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) substantially improved the clinical outcomes of patients with common VEGF-driven retinal diseases. The relatively high cost of branded agents, however, represents a financial burden for most healthcare systems and patients, likely resulting in impaired access to treatment and poorer clinical outcomes for some patients. Biosimilar medicines (biosimilars) are clinically equivalent, potentially economic alternatives to reference products. Biosimilars approved by leading health authorities have been demonstrated to be similar to the reference product in a comprehensive comparability exercise, generating the totality of evidence necessary to support analytical, pre-clinical, and clinical biosimilarity. Anti-VEGF biosimilars have been entering the field of ophthalmology in the US since 2022. We review regulatory and scientific concepts of biosimilars, the biosimilar development landscape in ophthalmology, with a specific focus on anti-VEGF biosimilars, and discuss opportunities and challenges facing the uptake of biosimilars.

Consensus-Based Overarching Principles and Recommendations on the Use of Biosimilars in the Treatment of Inflammatory Arthritis in the Gulf Region

BACKGROUND

Though biologic agents have significantly improved the treatment of inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis), high costs, stringent regulations, strict reimbursement criteria, and existing patents have limited patient access to treatments. While being highly similar in quality, safety, and efficacy to biologic reference products, biosimilars can reduce the financial burden and prevent underutilization of medication.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this initiative was to develop an evidence-based consensus of overarching principles and recommendations aimed at standardizing the use of biosimilars in treating inflammatory arthritis in the Gulf region.

METHODS

A task force of practicing rheumatologists, a clinical pharmacist, a health economist, patients, regulators, and payors from across the Gulf region developed recommendations and overarching principles based on the outputs of a systematic literature review conducted to address Patient-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) questions specific to key challenges regarding the use of biosimilars for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis in the region. As the data before 2017 have been previously reviewed in another publication, the current review focused on data published between January 2017 and August 2022 (PROSPERO ID CRD42022364002). Consensus on each statement required a level of agreement of 70% or greater.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached for five overarching principles and nine recommendations by the task force. The principles emphasize the importance of improving the awareness, understanding, and perception of biosimilars, as well as the need for regulated regional real-world data generation and protocols to make biosimilars a viable and affordable treatment option for all patients. The consensus recommendations advocate the need for shared treatment decisions between rheumatologists and patients when considering biosimilars. They further recommend that confirmation of a biosimilar's efficacy and safety in a single indication is sufficient for extrapolation to other diseases for which the reference product has been approved. Finally, there is a need for pharmacovigilance and national health policies governing the adoption and prescription of biosimilars in clinical practice across the region.

CONCLUSIONS

These are the first consensus recommendations for the Gulf region based on a systematic literature review and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, integrating clinical evidence with clinical expertise to optimize decision making for the use of biosimilars in patients with inflammatory arthritis. They were formulated based on predominantly international data because of the limited regional data and therefore can be generalized to serve as recommendations for healthcare professionals in other parts of the world.

Additional Data in Expanded Patient Populations and New Indications Support the Practice of Biosimilar-to-Biosimilar Switching

As of 31 December, 2023, 31 observational studies have been published, including a total of 6081 patients who underwent a switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic. Most studies evaluated infliximab, while a smaller number evaluated adalimumab, rituximab or etanercept. Indications studied now include sarcoidosis, as well as the indications previously reported of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis/ankylosing spondylitis and inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis). This updated data set includes eight additional studies and 2386 more patients compared with those included in an earlier systematic review of biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching. In addition, since the earlier systematic review was published in 2022, the European Medicines Agency has stated that reference-to-biosimilar and biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching in the European Union is safe and efficacy remains unchanged after switching. Furthermore, following a review of the available evidence, the US Food and Drug Administration has confirmed that initial safety and immunogenicity concerns related to biosimilar switching are unfounded and that no differences are observed in efficacy, safety or immunogenicity following one or more switches. The availability of this new efficacy and safety data together with the supportive statements from the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Administration re-confirm the conclusion that as a scientific matter, biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching is an effective clinical practice, with no new safety concerns. Any suggestions to the contrary are not supported by the evidence.

An Update on Anti-TNF Biosimilar Switching-Real-World Clinical Effectiveness and Safety

Background

Biological medications for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) account for a significant burden on provincial budgets. In an effort to curb these rising costs, nationwide switching to biosimilars is expected to be complete in Canada before the end of 2023. Biosimilar products do not require the same rigor for licensing as the originator and therefore there has been appropriate scepticism as to how biosimilars will perform in real-world practice.

Methods

We have performed a systematic review including real-world observational studies of adult patients with IBD. The primary outcome was clinical effectiveness and/or safety in patients who had switched from originator to biosimilar anti-TNF. Secondary outcomes included loss of response (LOR), treatment persistence or cessation and immunogenicity.

Results

We included 43 studies (7,462 patients [70 percent Crohn's disease: 30 percent ulcerative colitis]; 32 infliximab studies, and 11 adalimumab studies). For infliximab, 75 percent patients were in clinical remission at the time of switch and 75 percent maintained clinical remission beyond 12 months, compared to 78 percent of patients who continued originator. For adalimumab, 86 percent patients were in remission at the time of switch with 82 percent maintaining remission at 6 months follow-up. Injection site pain was higher in patients who switched to a citrate containing adalimumab biosimilar, compared with those who continued originator. All other outcomes (LOR, treatment cessation or persistence and serious adverse events) were similar to patients who continued originator (in comparator cohorts or the available literature).

Conclusion

Whilst ongoing vigilance is required, these data are reassuring to both patients and clinicians and will significantly help to reduce health-care costs across Canada.

Biosimilars: From Production to Patient

Biologic drugs are large, complex molecules produced through biotechnology. A biosimilar is a biologic product that is highly similar to an already approved biologic (reference product), with no clinically meaningful differences in purity, safety, or efficacy; as such, a biosimilar does not need to undergo the same level of study in a clinical trial program as the original reference product. Due to the potential impact of biosimilars on patient access and health care systems, the US Food and Drug Administration introduced an abbreviated pathway for approving biosimilars (351[k]) in 2009. There is strong evidence that switching from a reference product to a biosimilar does not reduce treatment effectiveness or increase the risk of adverse events. Biosimilars may reduce costs and increase patient access to biologic therapies. Biosimilar use in the United States has increased, as have the associated biosimilar cost savings, which are expected to reach $104 billion between 2020 and 2024. Yet, a need remains for increased knowledge among health care professionals and patients. Prescriber confidence is key to patient acceptance of biosimilars and minimizing the incidence of the nocebo effect. Infusion nurses are well positioned to help educate patients and to improve clinical outcomes across a range of diseases.

Engineered therapeutic proteins for sustained-release drug delivery systems

Proteins play a vital role in diverse biological processes in the human body, and protein therapeutics have been applied to treat different diseases such as cancers, genetic disorders, autoimmunity, and inflammation. Protein therapeutics have demonstrated their advantages, such as specific pharmaceutical effects, low toxicity, and strong solubility. However, several disadvantages arise in clinical applications, including short half-life, immunogenicity, and low permeation, leading to reduced drug effectiveness. The structure of protein therapeutics can be modified to increase molecular size, leading to prolonged stability and increased plasma half-life. Notably, the controlled-release delivery systems for the sustained release of protein drugs and preserving the stability of cargo proteins are envisioned as a potential approach to overcome these challenges. In this review, we summarize recent research progress related to structural modifications (PEGylation, glycosylation, poly amino acid modification, and molecular biology-based strategies) and promising long-term delivery systems, such as polymer-based systems (injectable gel/implants, microparticles, nanoparticles, micro/nanogels, functional polymers), lipid-based systems (liposomes, solid lipid nanoparticles, nanostructured lipid carriers), and inorganic nanoparticles exploited for protein therapeutics. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: In this review, we highlight recent advances concerning modifying proteins directly to enhance their stability and functionality and discuss state-of-the-art methods for the delivery and controlled long-term release of active protein therapeutics to their target site. In terms of drug modifications, four widely used strategies, including PEGylation, poly amino acid modification, glycosylation, and genetic, are discussed. As for drug delivery systems, we emphasize recent progress relating to polymer-based systems, lipid-based systems developed, and inorganic nanoparticles for protein sustained-release delivery. This review points out the areas requiring focused research attention before the full potential of protein therapeutics for human health and disease can be realized.

Clinical Benefit, Price, and Uptake for Cancer Biosimilars vs Reference Drugs in China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

The high cost of biologics used to treat cancer has been an increasing burden in the world. In China, the recent approval of cancer biosimilar drugs to resolve this problem is promising, but evidence of clinical benefits, price, and uptake for these drugs is still lacking.

Objectives

To compare characteristics of pivotal clinical trials in China and other countries for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab and investigate the efficacy or effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity outcomes of cancer biosimilars compared with reference drugs by meta-analysis.

Data Sources

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for published studies from database inception to February 1, 2023, using the search topics (cancers) AND (biosimilars).

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies that included patients with cancer were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two authors independently extracted the outcome estimates and characteristics for each study. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to summarize the relative estimates with 95% CIs. This study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinical trial characteristics were collected for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. The relative estimates of efficacy or effectiveness (objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival), safety, and immunogenicity outcomes were analyzed for biosimilars vs reference drugs. The weighted average price and uptake rate were evaluated for biosimilars relative to their reference drugs between 2015 and 2022.

Results

A total of 39 RCTs (involving 18 791 patients) and 10 cohort studies (involving 1998 patients) were included. The biosimilars of bevacizumab (16 RCTs; risk ratio [RR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.01; P = .17), rituximab (12 RCTs; RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.08; P = .70), and trastuzumab (9 RCTs: RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.12; P = .29) met equivalence with reference biologics in regard to the objective response rate. The results summarized from cohort studies were consistent with those from RCTs. In 2022, cancer biosimilars were priced at 69% to 90% of the costs for the reference drugs, and their uptake reached 54% to 83% in China.

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that cancer biosimilars provided comparable clinical benefits at lower prices compared with reference drugs. These findings suggest the potential feasibility of expediting the transition from reference drugs to biosimilars to benefit more patients with cancer.

Future Evolution of Biosimilar Development by Application of Current Science and Available Evidence: The Developer's Perspective

Biosimilars have been available in the USA for over a decade, and in Europe for almost two decades. In that time, biosimilars have become established in the treatment landscape for a wide range of diseases, facilitating patient access and affordability of healthcare. However, patients can still struggle to access biological therapies in some markets. There is a need to streamline the process of developing biosimilars without compromising their quality, safety, or efficacy. This opinion piece considers the efficiencies that could be achieved within the biosimilar approval process. In clinical trials for biosimilars, clinical efficacy endpoints have been shown to be less sensitive measures of biosimilarity than biochemical, biophysical, and biological functional assays. Additional clinical efficacy studies comparing potential biosimilars and reference products do not add information that is useful for regulatory purposes. Large clinical studies of biosimilars with immunogenicity endpoints are of limited value, given the quality control processes in place for all biologics, including biosimilars. The expectation for multiple-switch studies for US interchangeability designation should be reconsidered immediately, and the category should be eliminated in the future. As biosimilars are typically approved globally based on a single set of clinical trials, and all subsequent manufacturing changes are already carefully monitored by regulatory authorities, comparative pharmacokinetic testing of EU and US reference products is unnecessary. Manufacturers and regulators could take greater advantage of existing real-world evidence. Streamlining biosimilar development would enable biosimilar development of more and a wider variety of biological drugs, accelerating biosimilar development without impacting patient safety or effectiveness.

Real-world switching and discontinuation outcomes of infliximab biosimilars in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A scoping review

BACKGROUND: Infliximab (IFX) was one of the first tumor necrosis factor inhibitors developed to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and has transformed the treatment and management of many chronic inflammatory diseases. Large-scale studies in the real-world setting on the utilization patterns of IFX biosimilars are limited. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a scoping review of observational studies investigating the switching and discontinuation outcomes of the IFX biosimilars in patients with RA. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in 3 databases (ie, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science). This review identified observational studies that examined switching and/or discontinuation outcomes of IFX biosimilar products in adult patients with RA. Studies published in English between 2015 and 2020 were included. Studies that did not include either switching or discontinuation patterns of IFX biosimilars, had a pooled result for biologics, or were nonobservational were excluded. Extracted data were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The initial literature search yielded 1,130 studies. With 244 duplicate articles removed and 779 excluded after title and abstract screening, the search resulted in 107 studies for full-text screening. 18 articles were included in this review. 13 countries were represented in the included studies, with most studies originating in a European country and only one article from the United States. Discontinuation rates of IFX biosimilars were reported by 14 studies and varied substantially from 8.3% to 87.0%. 4 studies (22%) directly compared discontinuation rates between IFX reference and biosimilar. Switching rates, similarly, had a great variance from 4% to 81.5%; only 4 articles described rates specifically in patients with RA. The most common causes of discontinuation were ineffectiveness and adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: The growing market of biologic products necessitates more large-scale studies examining the real-world treatment patterns of these therapy options to provide reassurance to and build trust among patients and clinicians. Our findings suggest the inconclusiveness of current literature on the real-world implications of IFX biosimilars discontinuation and product switching. This review captures the heterogeneity in reported data and identifies areas for future research to provide clarity to the value of IFX biosimilars.

Assessment of Reported Adverse Events After Interchanging Between TNF-α Inhibitor Biosimilars in the WHO Pharmacovigilance Database

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Observational studies have shown that a significant proportion of patients interchanging between tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor biosimilars withdraws from the new treatment because of adverse effects. We aim to analyze adverse events related to interchanging from tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) inhibitor reference products to biosimilars and between biosimilars reported in the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database.

METHODS

We extracted all cases reporting the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities term "Product substitution issue (PT)" for TNF-α inhibitors. Then, we analyzed and categorized all adverse events reported in more than 1% of cases. We compared the adverse events reported according to reporter qualification, type of switch, and type of TNF-α inhibitor using Chi2 tests. We conducted a network analysis coupled with a clustering approach to identify syndromes of co-reported adverse events.

RESULTS

In the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database, 2543 cases and 6807 adverse events related to TNF-α inhibitor interchangeability have been reported up to October 2022. Injection-site reactions were the most reported adverse events with 940 cases (37.0%), followed by modifications in drug effect in 607 cases (23.9%). Musculoskeletal, cutaneous, and gastrointestinal disorders linked to the underlying disease were reported in 505 (20.0%), 145 (5.7%), and 207 (8.1%) cases, respectively. Adverse events non-related to the underlying disease were nonspecific (n = 458, 18.0%), neurologic (n = 224, 8.8%), respiratory (n = 132, 5.2%), and psychological disorders (n = 64, 2.5%). Injection-site reactions and infection-related symptoms (e.g., nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infection, lower respiratory tract infection) were more reported by non-healthcare professionals while adverse events related to reduced clinical efficacy (e.g., drug ineffective, arthralgia, psoriasis) were more reported by healthcare professionals. The proportions of injection-site reactions were higher when switching between biosimilars of the same reference product, but the proportions of adverse events related to reduced clinical efficacy (e.g., psoriasis, arthritis, psoriatic arthropathy) were more reported when switching from a reference product. The main differences in the proportions of reported cases between adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept were driven by symptoms related to the underlying targeted diseases, except for a higher reporting rate of injection-site pain with adalimumab. Adverse events evocative of hypersensitivity reactions were reported in 192 (7.6%) cases. Most of the network clusters concerned non-specific adverse events or were related to reduced clinical efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis highlights the burden of patient-reported adverse events when interchanging between TNF-α inhibitor biosimilars, notably injection-site reactions, non-specific adverse events, and symptoms related to reduced clinical efficacy. Our study also highlights differences in reporting patterns between patients and healthcare professionals and depending on the type of switch. The results are limited by missing data, the lack of precision of the coded Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms, and by the variability of reporting rate of adverse events. Thus, incidence rates of adverse events cannot be inferred from these results.

Biosimilars in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a pharmacokinetic overview

INTRODUCTION

As of May 2023, 19 and 18 biosimilars have been approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) respectively.

AREA COVERED

Pharmacokinetic results of phase 1 studies of approved biosimilars were reviewed by systematic literature search. The impact of immunogenicity on the pharmacokinetic data and clinical response was assessed, and the potential benefit of monitoring serum concentrations of biologic drugs is discussed. The advantage of subcutaneous CT-P13 (an infliximab biosimilar) in clinical practice is reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

Biosimilars are approved based on the totality of evidence including comparable physiochemical properties, PK / PD profiles, and clinical efficacy and safety to the originator. To utilize biosimilars more effectively, physicians should be aware of the utility of combination DMARD therapy to reduce immunogenicity and maintain efficacy and PK profile. PK monitoring, however, is not currently recommended in clinical practice. CT-P13 subcutaneous (SC) is the first SC infliximab used for treatment of RA patients. Based on data from clinical studies and the real world, SC-infliximab is an attractive therapeutic option compared to IV formulations of infliximab based on its efficacy, pharmacokinetics, patient-reported outcomes, and safety profile.

Assessment of community pharmacists' knowledge of the differences between generic drugs and biosimilars: A pilot cross-sectional study

Background

Pharmacists' knowledge of the differences in the characteristics between generic drugs and biosimilars is essential to ensure good practice and lower pharmaceutical bills.

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate community pharmacists' knowledge and perception of using and substituting biosimilars and generic drugs.

Design

A pilot cross-sectional study was performed over 2 months (August-September 2022) targeting community pharmacists in their work site.

Method

Data were collected using a uniform survey given to 75 pharmacists. Afterward, a knowledge score was generated by summing several individual scores of statements regarding generic drugs and biosimilars.

Results

Overall, pharmacists had moderate to low knowledge scores, namely, with the statements tackling biosimilars. No significance was reported between these scores and their general characteristics. As regards their substitution, most pharmacists agreed to substitute generic drugs if the brand was not available, while the doctor's approval was crucial for biosimilar switching. Most participants perceived equal effectiveness of generic drugs but similar to a lower one for biosimilars compared to the reference medication. Pharmacists highlighted the need to include generic drugs and biosimilars in the continuing education program and workshops.

Conclusion

To promote their use, improving pharmacists' knowledge can help overcome misconceptions about generic drugs and biosimilars. It is recommended that health care stakeholders focus on fostering good understanding among pharmacists to enhance access to medication.

Molecular Biosimilarity—An AI-Driven Paradigm Shift

Scientific, technical, and bioinformatics advances have made it possible to establish analytics-based molecular biosimilarity for the approval of biosimilars. If the molecular structure is identical and other product- and process-related attributes are comparable within the testing limits, then a biosimilar candidate will have the same safety and efficacy as its reference product. Classical testing in animals and patients is much less sensitive in terms of identifying clinically meaningful differences, as is reported in the literature. The recent artificial intelligence (AI)-based protein structure prediction model, AlphaFold-2, has confirmed that the primary structure of proteins always determines their 3D structure; thus, we can deduce that a biosimilar with an identical primary structure will have the same efficacy and safety. Further confirmation of the thesis has been established using technologies that are now much more sensitive. For example, mass spectrometry (MS) is thousands of times more sensitive and accurate when compared to any form of biological testing. While regulatory agencies have begun waiving animal testing and, in some cases, clinical efficacy testing, the removal of clinical pharmacology profiling brings with it a dramatic paradigm shift, reducing development costs without compromising safety or efficacy. A list of 160+ products that are ready to enter as biosimilars has been shared. Major actions from regulatory agencies and developers are required to facilitate this paradigm shift.